Long-term outcomes following minimal invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity match analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Minimal invasive aortic valve replacement has become a routine procedure. In this study, we compared the outcomes between conventional and minimal invasive aortic valve replacement via the partial upper sternotomy that were performed in our Institution.

METHODS

The 5 year survival and postoperative outcomes of 34 patients that underwent isolated MIAVR between the years 2010-2013 were compared with the outcomes of 34 randomly selected patients that underwent conventional AVR, after propensity match analysis.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the two groups concerning the early and late postoperative outcomes. MIAVR patients had a longer mean cross-clamp time (p = 0.002) and longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (p = 0.0005) compared to the AVR patients. 5 year mortality and survival were 4.17 % vs 16.67 % (p = 0.20) and 95.8 % vs 83.3 % (p = 0.37) in the MIAVR and AVR groups respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a comparable 5 year survival and postoperative outcomes between the MIAVR and AVR groups. In our opinion, the minimal access aortic valve replacement can be performed safely with excellent long-term results in selected patients (Tab. 4, Fig. 1, Ref. 35).